WIPO IIM/2: A sort of summary
This summary is somewhat long. If you prefer pure entertainment to the fascinating, fast-moving UN processes, treat yourself to unhappybirthday.com. I already linked there a few months ago; but then, it really conveys in a nutshell one of the problems of the present copyright system.
Now for the serious part. The three days of the WIPO IIM/2 were mainly filled with procedural haggling. Nevertheless some people from the Friends of Development considered the meeting a success. In the Brazilian view, it is a big deal that they were able to bring some countries to taking an outright position. This was especially the case with the USA, who were finally prodded into publicly admitting that the refuse the core points of the proposed development agenda.
Before, they consciously kept things vague. Now, it is on the record that they refuse the establishment of a WIPO research and evaluation office (WERO); that they do not want, among others: transparency a wider participation of Civil Society that NGOs be allowed to input advice before norms for WIPO’s work are set benchmarks for evaluation of technical assistance a code of ethics for the people working in technical assistance
This being only the points that most offended the US, their position really amounted to a “Hell, NO!” to the idea of a development agenda as a whole. This is not only because these are the core points; also, the FOD proposal really represents an integral whole, more than just the sum of its parts. As a consequence, taking out these vital elements in effect sabotages the Development Agenda.
But while it might appear strange to you that something like transparency should be so objectionable, what is really fascinating are the grounds on which the USA rejected these ideas: They alleged that while the FOD proposal was basically sensible, the Friends of Development were really pursuing a secret agenda. This can be summed up to say something like “What you say is not bad, but we think that what you really think is something different, something evil.” Does this sound strange to you? Well, it is.
WIPO until now has basically served the interests of the northern countries and their industries. It is perhaps not surprising that its northern members are opposed to changing this. The strategy of the Friends of Development will most likely be to keep forcing these countries to pronounce their position more clearly. As they have the moral high ground, this looks like a winning move for now.
Facing this situation, the IP traditionalists seems to be in a state of shock, showing signs of disorientation. Some, especially among the BINGOs (just to reintroduce the acronym: Business Interest NGOs), react with outright aggression, while more serious participants, such as Canada, actually seem ready to negotiate. The EU is a bit of a special case, as they were not speaking with a single voice this time. While Britain kept insisting on making the issue disappear into the half-dead PCIPD, France opted for a more fuzzy statement more in line with the Canadians.
This can only work if the group of the Friends of Development holds firm. Contrary to my expectations, there were no countries that had been broken from the group by bilateral pressures or simply had sold out. Looks like things are progressing in the right direction, if only slowly.
As for the WIPO bureaucrats: Judging from the hearsay I’ve gathered, most of them are quite sceptical of this small revolution. But this may vary with their age and seniority: While the ones high up the ladder would like to keep things running as before, the layers just below them are recognising that WIPO needs to adapt itself if it is to survive, and that this process ist not necessarily a danger to them.
The process is gathering momentum, and whatever the result, WIPO will never again be quite like it was before. I just can’t bring myself to think that this is a bad thing.
We’ll be back for more in July, around the same dates (20th to 22nd). Can’t wait to place my rear end in those leather chairs again.